Array
(
[0] => ..... as follows:'on 10.2.95 at about 3.40 p.m. si tarkeshwar singh was on patrolling duty in main bazar, paharganj. he received a secret information that one nepali often comes to diamond cafe to sell charas and at that time also he was standing outside the diamond cafe waiting for some customer and that he is in possession .....
[1] =>
[2] =>
[3] =>
[4] =>
[5] =>
[6] =>
[7] =>
[8] =>
[9] =>
[10] =>
[11] =>
[12] =>
[13] =>
[14] =>
)
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-09-2002
Reported in : 98(2002)DLT3; 2002(82)ECC791
..... as follows:'on 10.2.95 at about 3.40 p.m. si tarkeshwar singh was on patrolling duty in main bazar, paharganj. he received a secret information that one nepali often comes to diamond cafe to sell charas and at that time also he was standing outside the diamond cafe waiting for some customer and that he is in possession .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-08-2002
Reported in : 100(2002)DLT78
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. These two Habeas Corpus petitions have been filed with almost identical reliefs. thereforee, we deem it appropriate to dispose of both these petitions by this common judgment.2. Criminal Writ 746/02 has been moved on behalf of four persons, namely, Partha Chhetri, Moti Prasad, Maheshwar Dahal and Aditi. According to the petitioner they are being held by the Special Cell, Lodhi Colony, presumably, under the powers conferred by the Foreigners Act. It is incorporated in the petition filed on 12.7.2002 that the morning newspapers published that they have been served with 'Quit India' notices. It is also mentioned in the petition that to the best of the petitioner's knowledge Partha Chhetri is an Indian citizen hailing from Siliguri and there are no legal or other proceedings against him in Nepal.3. In the petition it is prayed that a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari be issued for quashing the 'Quit India' notices. It is also prayed that the writ o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-03-2002
Reported in : AIR2002Delhi440
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. As the facts and the issues that arise for our consideration in these writ petitions are similar, we propose to take up all these writ petitions together and dispose of the same by thiscommon judgment and order.CW. 3412/97 This writ petition is filed by the petitioners by way of public interest litigation for a direction to respondent No. 1/Delhi University to take disciplinary action against all Full TimeLaw Teachers of the Delhi University, who are practicing in the courts and also praying for adirection to prohibit all Full Time Law Teachers of the Faculty of Law of the University of Delhi from carrying on legal practice/profession and also from appearing in the courts of law in any manner. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the Delhi State Bar Council, respondent No. 3 to cancel the enrolment/license to practice given to Full Time Law Teachers.2. The petitioner No. 1 is an Advocate practicing in the High Court of Delhi and he has stated th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-10-2002
Reported in : 2002IIAD(Delhi)149; AIR2002Delhi255; 2002(1)ARBLR610(Delhi); 96(2002)DLT515
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is an International Award. It was made and published on 24th September, 1997. By virtue of the award, the plaintiffs Thyssen Stahlunion GmbH (in short 'ISU') are entitled to the following sums:- 'a) US $ 2,184,079.91 being the damages awarded to the plaintiffs for the first and the second lot. b) US $ 424,813.85 being the interest awarded for the two lots till the date of the award.c) US # 500,000 being legal costs awarded under the award. d) USD 50,000 being costs of the arbitration awarded under the award. e) For the interest at the same rate as in the award from the date of the award till realization.' 2. Defendant - Steel Authority of India Limited (in short SAIL) has assailed the award almost in entirety. 3. Disputes between the parties arose out of two contracts, one of which was admittedly a concluded contract against which supplies were made. It is dated 4.3.1994 which was subsequently amended on 12.5.1994 (hereinafter referred as 'amendment'). Another is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-13-2002
Reported in : AIR2003Delhi103; 101(2002)DLT229
Anil Dev Singh, J:1. By this public interest writ petitioner seeks: (i) a direction to the respondents to protect the rights of innocent conscientious consumers who object to the use of animals in whole or in part or their derivatives in food, cosmetics and drugs, etc., by making the manufacturers and packers thereof to disclose the ingredients of the aforesaid products so that they make an informed choice with regard to their consumption; (ii) a direction to the manufacturers and packers of cosmetics, drugs and articles of food for complete and full disclosure of the ingredients of their products being sold to consumers; (iii) a declaration that the consumers have a right of making an informed choice between the products made or derived from animal and non-animal ingredients; and (iv) a direction to the manufacturers and packers of food, cosmetic and drugs that the products made from animals should bear an easily identifiable symbol conveying that it has an animal ingredient. The peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-19-2002
Reported in : [2002(95)FLR974]; (2003)ILLJ341Del
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. These three LPAs involving similar questions of law and fact were taken for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.The fact of the matter however is being noticed from LPA 413/2002The respondent herein was employed in horticulture department as a Mali. He was transferred to Civil Lines Zone in October 1983. His services were terminated on November 10, 1984 without assigning any reason. According to the respondent on November 15, 1984 while he was going back to his house after performing his duties, he sustained injuries in a fight with another villager and remained confined to Hindu Rao Hospital. He was treated as out door patient for two months. A case under Section 307/324 IPC was registered against him. After his recovery he reported for duty but he was not allowed to do so. In the criminal case, however, he was acquitted.An industrial dispute in relation to the order of retrenchment was raised, inter alia, on the ground that the same w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Jul-09-2002
Reported in : (2002)(84)ECC624
1. The above captioned appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the common Order-in-original dated 18.4.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs vide which he had imposed penalty of different amounts, on them under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act.2. The facts giving rise to these appeals may briefly be stated as under: On the basis of specific intelligence, the officers of the DRI intercepted two tempoes loaded with goods, in front of godown-cum-residence located at Vikas Nagar. Appellant Dhiraj Singh was present at the spot at that time holding mobile in his hand. The two tempoes were found loaded with ball bearings with markings of foreign origin. The search of the godown was also taken and from there also ball bearings of foreign origin were recovered. The tempoes and the ball bearings were taken to the office of the DRI where panchnama was drawn bearing the date 2.5.98. On the way to DRI office, from the godown, Attar Pal Singh appellant was also taken along while...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Feb-05-2002
Reported in : (2002)(81)ECC428
1. The issue involved in these two appeals filed by M/s. A.C.C. Ltd. & M/s. Naveen Projects Ltd. is whether Belt Conveyor System installed in the factory premises of M/s. A.C.C. Ltd. is leviable to Central Excise duty.2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that M/s. Naveen Projects Ltd. (NPL) are engaged in the manufacture of Conveyors; that M/s, A.C.C. Ltd. placed an order for erection and commissioning of 16 Belt Conveyors for material handling at Bilaspur (H.P.); that NPL manufactured the Belt Conveyor and other parts of Conveyors in their factory at Ghaziabad which were cleared on payment of appropriate excise duty; that they procured the other items from other manufacturers and got them supplied directly to the site of A.C.C.; that with the help of these items they fabricated, erected and commissioned the Conveyor System and material handling facilities like gantry with walk-way, railings, structural supports, transfer towers, etc.; that the Conveyor System incl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Sep-06-2002
Reported in : (2003)(86)ECC478
1. On 9.5.99, the respondent was intercepted at the Customs Barrier at Nepalganj Road on his way from Nepal to India, by officers of the Customs. 41 Indian currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 500 were recovered alongwith currency notes of lower denomination from his person and the same were seized by the officers believing that the currency notes of denomination of Rs. 500 were liable to confiscation under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act. After recording a statement of the respondent under Section 107 of the Customs Act, the department booked a case against him and accordingly issued a show-cause notice to him for confiscating the currency notes and imposing penalty on him.The original authority ordered absolute confiscation of the seized goods worth Rs. 20,500 (Rs. 500 x 41) and imposed on the appellant a personal penalty of Rs. 500 under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The appeal preferred by the party against the order of the original authority was allowed by the Commissio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Nov-14-2002
Reported in : (2003)(86)ECC352
1. In this appeal, the challenge is against the imposition, by the Commissioner of Customs, of a penalty of Rs. 75,000 on the appellant under Section H2(b) of the Customs Act.2. The appellant was one of the three occupants of the truck which was intercepted by Customs officers in the night of 4/5 March, 2001 on the Gorakhpur-Sonauli road. The other two occupants of the truck were the driver Shiv Achal Patel and the owner Virendra Pratap. The truck was coming from Sonauli, a place within the territory of India, near the Indo-Nepal border. On a thorough check of the vehicle, the officers discovered foreign origin computer parts bearing the marking 'Made in Phillipines' in secret cavities behind the driver's seat. On interrogation, the driver stated that the cavities had been constructed for smuggling of goods from Nepal; and that the computer parts found in the cavities were brought from Nepal. The officers, believing that the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111 (d) of t...
Tag this Judgment!